1999 (8) TMI 83 - SC - Customs

Whether assessee eligible for benefit of notification dated 18-4-1988? Held that - It is clear that the respondent had arrived at Bombay in July, 1989 when she had put in her claim with the Customs authorities for import of goods on transfer of residence. It is not in dispute that the goods/equipment in question was exported from America in May, 1990. Therefore, the respondent had not been a resident abroad for a minimum period of one year immediately preceding May, 1990. This being so, she could not get the benefit of this notification and the finding of the Tribunal in this regard cannot be upheld. The Collector was right in coming to the conclusion that the import of the said items was without any licence and the same was liable for confiscation. Appeal allowed. The judgment of the CEGAT is set aside and that of the Collector is restored.

Issues:
1. Import of medical equipment without proper license.
2. Interpretation of import policy regarding age of machinery.
3. Compliance with Customs notification for duty exemption.
4. Import of accessories without proper declaration.

Issue 1: Import of medical equipment without proper license
The respondent imported medical equipment along with household items without the required import license. The Collector of Customs ordered confiscation of the goods, citing the machinery being more than 7 years old, which was prohibited under the Import Policy. The Tribunal, however, allowed the import based on the machinery's expected residual life. The Supreme Court disagreed with the Tribunal's interpretation, stating that the import was not valid as per the policy.

Issue 2: Interpretation of import policy regarding age of machinery
The Tribunal's interpretation of the Import Policy was challenged by the Supreme Court. The Court clarified that the policy clearly prohibited the import of machinery older than 7 years. The Tribunal's reasoning that machinery with a residual life of more than 5 years could be imported was deemed incorrect. The Court held that the machinery in question was not validly imported under the policy.

Issue 3: Compliance with Customs notification for duty exemption
The Tribunal concluded that the respondent, having resided abroad for over 15 years, was eligible for duty exemption under a Customs notification. However, the Supreme Court found that the respondent did not meet the requirement of residing abroad for a minimum period of one year immediately preceding the shipment of goods, thus disqualifying her from the exemption.

Issue 4: Import of accessories without proper declaration
The Tribunal considered accessories as integral to the main equipment and approved their import based on a recommendation letter. The Supreme Court criticized this decision, stating that the recommendation was unnecessary and did not authorize the import of accessories without a proper license. The Court upheld the Collector's decision to confiscate the accessories for being smuggled in without declaration.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's judgment and reinstating the Collector's decision. The respondent was found liable for improper import practices and ordered to pay costs.

← Previous Next →